Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 4 Hansard (21 April) . . Page.. 1055 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: You are opposed to the road, are you not, Ms Tucker? Just nod, Ms Tucker. I will put words into her mouth since she is not prepared to put any into her own and say yes, she is opposed to the road, and she would like this process to lead to the road not going ahead. Mr Corbell claims, at least when he is in Gungahlin, to be in favour of building the road.

The argument is that this somehow serves both purposes. It satisfies Ms Tucker because it might result in the road not being built, and it satisfies Mr Corbell because it might mean the road is changed in some way. How you can change the road so that it does not have an impact on public transport and the number of vehicles passing down the route and so on I do not know. The reality is that we have a little game being played out to facilitate people satisfying some part of an agenda which at the same time leaves the people of Gungahlin in continuing uncertainty about where they stand on their road.

They have been told by members of the Labor Party, particularly Mr Corbell, that the Labor Party is in favour of building that road. Now he wants an inquiry into the impact of the proposals on arterial roads, into the desirability of reducing the number of vehicles travelling on that road, the desirability of an eastern ring-road, and a cost-benefit analysis. Why do you do a cost-benefit analysis about whether you should build a road if you have decided to build the road anyway?

Mr Corbell: "Two options", it says, Gary.

MR HUMPHRIES: "Two options", says Mr Corbell. This is all just about whether we do the eastern arm or the western arm. That is what it is all about.

Mr Corbell: That is what it says.

MR HUMPHRIES: Is that right? No, that is not what it says, Mr Speaker. No, Mr Speaker, let us be clear about this. Mr Corbell says this is what this inquiry is all about. It does not say that. It says:

It does not say the Gungahlin Drive extension, eastern or western parts. This is an inquiry about the whole of the extension, from Barton Highway right down to Belconnen Way. If I move an amendment, Mr Corbell, to try to make it clear we are only inquiring into that part of the road from the point where the fork occurs, just near the Institute of Sport, will you support my amendment? I do not think so.

This is not an inquiry just into which of the eastern or western routes of the road, once it gets down to the Institute of Sport, should be supported. It is not about just that matter. It is an inquiry into whether we have the road at all. That is the only reason Ms Tucker is supporting it, because that is what she wants to see happen. She wants an inquiry into whether this road happens at all. That is what any reasonable reading of the language of this amendment actually says.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .